On 12 Jun 2015, at 22:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You wrote:
(Brent):
But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a
stable
physics. The two are not separable.
(Bruno):
Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self-
referentially correct" machine theory.
...
The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human logic' as
derived on
Planet Earth for "us". If I allow contents 'more' and 'so far
unaccessed' in the Entirety, "our" the sophistication may reduce to
a flimsy explanatory ignorance. Including physics,
universal (self-referentially correct) machine, etc.
Theory of Everything is spellable 'h o a x', since 'everything'
TOGETHER(?) may be a balanced and inseparable - well -
'Entirety', of which we got glimpses of details only
and used our extremely sophisticated brains (!) to explain it all
to less sophisticated
believers (scientists?).
One more: there were several questions about a fitting ID of super-
intelligence.
I would start with a 'fitting ID' of "intelligence" and then decide
if the one we are talking
about is 'super' indeed.
I proposed the Latin origination of 'reading between the
lines' (inter-lego) i.o.w. to
consider more than the plain dictionary definition for concepts
spelled out. In such
respect 'Watson' would be a good example. We do it simpler(?) in
our brain. IFFF?
Considering our 'intelligence' we are still at human levels. The
reason, why I went
with 'consciousness' a step further to consider responses
(unidentified nature) upon
relations (unidentified and unrestricted) over the entire Entirety.
Most of the discussion on this (and other?) lists restrict both
concepts to humans
(machines).
With agnostically restricted intelligence (consciousness)
JM
On Fri, Ju
That sounds like Darwin's worry when he concluded that we were
descended from an ape ancestor that he could not trust his own
thought processes because they were also descended from an ape
ancestor.
To which someone no doubt replied, "Whose thoughts will you trust if
not your own." Samiya has an answer to this, but I think Darwin
would have chosen to stick with his own.
Or like rejecting a thesis on the brain, invoking circularity because
the candidate used a brain to write it.
Only plant should have the right to study zoology, in that case.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.